p. 21

OverviewVersionsHelp

Facsimile

Transcription

Status: Complete

[Top line cut off]
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53215
January 23, 1967

Joseph T. Syta
3510 W. Branting Lane
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53215

The Honorable Mr. Henry Maier
Mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
City Hall, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Subject: "You Can't Buck City Hall!". Or Ref: File No 66-2637 Zoning Change Request

Sir:

Mayor Maier, you no doubt have heard this expression many times. While it may or may not amuse you, please read on and consider this letter in the hope that it will guide you to an impartial decision on the above subject that should reach your desk in the next week.

As a fill in, Kohl's Food Stores secured options on several residential properties on 35th and Greenfield; their intent: a re-zoning from residential to local business to allow for a store and parking lot.

At the Jan 10, 1967 public hearing, most of the property owners directly affected were present, and quite empathically voiced opposition to said-re-zoning. Their stand was subsequently verified in a petition that was circulated after the Jan 11 Planning Commission hearing, in that this petition was signed by almost all the property owners affected. At this meeting, Ald. Jendusa explained various positions. However, his attitude quite clearly indicated that he was in favor of the change. Progress--he said, and that was it. Our feeling was that we had had it-that is was hopeless to fight on.

Th Jan 11 Planning Commission meeting was attended by only a few of the property owners, again bearing our my feeling of the hopelessness of it, that you can't buck City Hall! However, we were amazed when it turned out that the Planning Commission rejected the requested zoning change, and justifying it, on various grounds, which boiled down in my words to:

1. Present excess traffic would be further increased, adding to the number of accidents at this corner.
2. The area is amply serviced by at least 3 major food chains, plus many small neighborhood stores.
3. The area is in surprisingly good physical condition, the owners are evidently prideful in their possessions.
4. The Planning Commission did not favor 'strip zoning' in the area.
5. The vast majority of property owners did not want residential zoning disturbed.
6. The introduction of such a business would cause the area to deteriorate.

Perhaps we revised our feeling of the chances on bucking City Hall, when we tasted this first victory. However, my feeling was one of skepticism-we had won on one small battle--but the war could still be lost. It was then that a petition was circulated and signed by at least 30 affected property owners, voicing opposition to any zoning changes (said petition is part of the Common Council records)

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page